Quantifying inequities in COVID-19 vaccine distribution over time by social vulnerability, race and ethnicity, and location: A population-level analysis in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri.

BACKGROUND: Equity in vaccination coverage is a cornerstone for a successful public health response to COVID-19. To deepen understanding of the extent to which vaccination coverage compares with initial strategies for equitable vaccination, we explore primary vaccine series and booster rollout over time and by race/ethnicity, social vulnerability, and geography. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on all COVID-19 vaccinations administered across 7 counties in the St. Louis region and 4 counties in the Kansas City region. We compared rates of receiving the primary COVID-19 vaccine series and boosters relative to time, race/ethnicity, zip-code-level Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), vaccine location type, and COVID-19 disease burden. We adapted a well-established tool for measuring inequity-the Lorenz curve-to quantify inequities in COVID-19 vaccination relative to these key metrics. Between 15 December 2020 and 15 February 2022, 1,763,036 individuals completed the primary series and 872,324 received a booster. During early phases of the primary series rollout, Black and Hispanic individuals from high SVI zip codes were vaccinated at less than half the rate of White individuals from low SVI zip codes, but rates increased over time until they were higher than rates in White individuals after June 2021; Asian individuals maintained high levels of vaccination throughout. Increasing vaccination rates in Black and Hispanic communities corresponded with periods when more vaccinations were offered at small community-based sites such as pharmacies rather than larger health systems and mass vaccination sites. Using Lorenz curves, zip codes in the quartile with the lowest rates of primary series completion accounted for 19.3%, 18.1%, 10.8%, and 8.8% of vaccinations while representing 25% of the total population, cases, deaths, or population-level SVI, respectively. When tracking Gini coefficients, these disparities were greatest earlier during rollout, but improvements were slow and modest and vaccine disparities remained across all metrics even after 1 year. Patterns of disparities for boosters were similar but often of much greater magnitude during rollout in fall 2021. Study limitations include inherent limitations in the vaccine registry dataset such as missing and misclassified race/ethnicity and zip code variables and potential changes in zip code population sizes since census enumeration. CONCLUSIONS: Inequities in the initial COVID-19 vaccination and booster rollout in 2 large US metropolitan areas were apparent across racial/ethnic communities, across levels of social vulnerability, over time, and across types of vaccination administration sites. Disparities in receipt of the primary vaccine series attenuated over time during a period in which sites of vaccination administration diversified, but were recapitulated during booster rollout. These findings highlight how public health strategies from the outset must directly target these deeply embedded structural and systemic determinants of disparities and track equity metrics over time to avoid perpetuating inequities in healthcare access.

Interventions to reengage people living with HIV who are lost to follow-up from HIV treatment programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing services to facilitate engagement and retention in care of people living with HIV (PLWH) on antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) is critical to decrease HIV-related morbidity and mortality and HIV transmission. We systematically reviewed the literature for the effectiveness of implementation strategies to reestablish and subsequently retain clinical contact, improve viral load suppression, and reduce mortality among patients who had been lost to follow-up (LTFU) from HIV services. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched 7 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, ERIC, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO regional databases) and 3 conference abstract archives (CROI, IAC, and IAS) to find randomized trials and observational studies published through 13 April 2020. Eligible studies included those involving children and adults who were diagnosed with HIV, had initiated ART, and were subsequently lost to care and that reported at least one review outcome (return to care, retention, viral suppression, or mortality). Data were extracted by 2 reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. We characterized reengagement strategies according to how, where, and by whom tracing was conducted. We explored effects, first, among all categorized as LTFU from the HIV program (reengagement program effect) and second among those found to be alive and out of care (reengagement contact outcome). We used random-effect models for meta-analysis and conducted subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity. Searches yielded 4,244 titles, resulting in 37 included studies (6 randomized trials and 31 observational studies). In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (N = 16), tracing most frequently involved identification of LTFU from the electronic medical record (EMR) and paper records followed by a combination of telephone calls and field tracing (including home visits), by a team of outreach workers within 3 months of becoming LTFU (N = 7), with few incorporating additional strategies to support reengagement beyond contact (N = 2). In high-income countries (HICs) (N = 21 studies), LTFU were similarly identified through EMR systems, at times matched with other public health records (N = 4), followed by telephone calls and letters sent by mail or email and conducted by outreach specialist teams. Home visits were less common (N = 7) than in LMICs, and additional reengagement support was similarly infrequent (N = 5). Overall, reengagement programs were able to return 39% (95% CI: 31% to 47%) of all patients who were characterized as LTFU (n = 29). Reengagement contact resulted in 58% (95% CI: 51% to 65%) return among those found to be alive and out of care (N = 17). In 9 studies that had a control condition, the return was higher among those in the reengagement intervention group than the standard of care group (RR: 1.20 (95% CI: 1.08 to 1.32, P < 0.001). There were insufficient data to generate pooled estimates of retention, viral suppression, or mortality after the return. CONCLUSIONS: While the types of interventions are markedly heterogeneity, reengagement interventions increase return to care. HIV programs should consider investing in systems to better characterize LTFU to identify those who are alive and out of care, and further research on the optimum time to initiate reengagement efforts after missed visits and how to best support sustained reengagement could improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Evaluation of HIV treatment outcomes with reduced frequency of clinical encounters and antiretroviral treatment refills: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Global HIV treatment programs have sought to lengthen the interval between clinical encounters for people living with HIV (PLWH) who are established on antiretroviral treatment (ART) to reduce the burden of seeking care and to decongest health facilities. The overall effect of reduced visit frequency on HIV treatment outcomes is however unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of implementation strategies that reduce the frequency of clinical appointments and ART refills for PLWH established on ART. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched databases​ between 1 January 2010 and 9 November 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared reduced (6- to 12-monthly) clinical consultation or ART refill appointment frequency to 3- to 6-monthly appointments for patients established on ART. We assessed methodological quality and real-world relevance, and used Mantel-Haenszel methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals for retention, viral suppression, and mortality. We evaluated heterogeneity quantitatively and qualitatively, and overall evidence certainty using GRADE. Searches yielded 3,955 records, resulting in 10 studies (6 RCTs, 3 observational studies, and 1 study contributing observational and RCT data) representing 15 intervention arms with 33,599 adults (≥16 years) in 8 sub-Saharan African countries. Reduced frequency clinical consultations occurred at health facilities, while reduced frequency ART refills were delivered through facility or community pharmacies and adherence groups. Studies were highly pragmatic, except for some study settings and resources used in RCTs. Among studies comparing reduced clinical consultation frequency (6- or 12-monthly) to 3-monthly consultations, there appeared to be no difference in retention (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.04, p = 0.682, 8 studies, low certainty), and this finding was consistent across 6- and 12-monthly consultation intervals and delivery strategies. Viral suppression effect estimates were markedly influenced by under-ascertainment of viral load outcomes in intervention arms, resulting in inconclusive evidence. There was similarly insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.75-1.66, p = 0.592, 6 studies, very low certainty). For ART refill frequency, there appeared to be little to no difference in retention (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.06, p = 0.473, 4 RCTs, moderate certainty) or mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.63-3.35, p = 0.382, 4 RCTs, low certainty) between 6-monthly and 3-monthly visits. Similar to the analysis for clinical consultations, although viral suppression appeared to be better in 3-monthly arms, effect estimates were markedly influence by under-ascertainment of viral load outcomes in intervention arms, resulting in overall inclusive evidence. This systematic review was limited by the small number of studies available to compare 12- versus 6-monthly clinical consultations, insufficient data to compare implementation strategies, and lack of evidence for children, key populations, and low- and middle-income countries outside of sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this synthesis, extending clinical consultation intervals to 6 or 12 months and ART dispensing intervals to 6 months appears to result in similar retention to 3-month intervals, with less robust conclusions for viral suppression and mortality. Future research should ensure complete viral load outcome ascertainment, as well as explore mechanisms of effect, outcomes in other populations, and optimum delivery and monitoring strategies to ensure widespread applicability of reduced frequency visits across settings.

Deliberation, Dissent, and Distrust: Understanding Distinct Drivers of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of safe and efficacious coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, a significant proportion of the American public remains unvaccinated and does not appear to be immediately interested in receiving the vaccine. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed data from the US Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, a biweekly cross-sectional survey of US households. We estimated the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy across states and nationally and assessed the predictors of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rejection. In addition, we examined the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy, grouped into thematic categories. RESULTS: A total of 459 235 participants were surveyed from 6 January to 29 March 2021. While vaccine uptake increased from 7.7% to 47%, vaccine hesitancy rates remained relatively fixed: overall, 10.2% reported that they would probably not get a vaccine and 8.2% that they would definitely not get a vaccine. Income, education, and state political leaning strongly predicted vaccine hesitancy. However, while both female sex and black race were factors predicting hesitancy, among those who were hesitant, these same characteristics predicted vaccine reluctance rather than rejection. Those who expressed reluctance invoked mostly "deliberative" reasons, while those who rejected the vaccine were also likely to invoke reasons of "dissent" or "distrust." CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy comprises a sizable proportion of the population and is large enough to threaten achieving herd immunity. Distinct subgroups of hesitancy have distinctive sociodemographic associations as well as cognitive and affective predilections. Segmented public health solutions are needed to target interventions and optimize vaccine uptake.

Preferences for COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies in the US: A discrete choice survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US has been immensely successful in vaccinating those who are receptive, further increases in vaccination rates however will require more innovative approaches to reach those who remain hesitant. Developing vaccination strategies that are modelled on what people want could further increase uptake. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies that are aligned with public preferences we conducted a discrete choice experiment among the US public (N = 2,895) between March 15 to March 22, 2021. We applied sampling weights, evaluated mean preferences using mixed logit models, and identified latent class preference subgroups. On average, the public prioritized ease, preferring single to two dose vaccinations (mean preference: -0.29; 95%CI: -0.37 to -0.20), vaccinating once rather than annually (mean preference: -0.79; 95%CI: -0.89 to -0.70) and reducing waiting times at vaccination sites. Vaccine enforcement reduced overall vaccine acceptance (mean preference -0.20; 95%CI: -0.30 to -0.10), with a trend of increasing resistance to enforcement with increasing vaccine hesitancy. Latent class analysis identified four distinct preference phenotypes: the first prioritized inherent "vaccine features" (46.1%), the second were concerned about vaccine "service delivery" (8.8%), a third group desired "social proof" of vaccine safety and were susceptible to enforcement (13.2%), and the fourth group were "indifferent" to vaccine and service delivery features and resisted enforcement (31.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies several critical insights for the COVID-19 public health response. First, identifying preference segments is essential to ensure that vaccination services meet the needs of diverse population subgroups. Second, making vaccination easy and promoting autonomy by simplifying services and offering the public choices (where feasible) may increase uptake in those who remain deliberative. And, third vaccine mandates have the potential to increase vaccination rates in susceptible groups but may simultaneously promote control aversion and resistance in those who are most hesitant.

Public Preferences for Social Distancing Policy Measures to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Missouri.

Importance: Policies to promote social distancing can minimize COVID-19 transmission but come with substantial social and economic costs. Quantifying relative preferences among the public for such practices can inform locally relevant policy prioritization and optimize uptake. Objective: To evaluate relative utilities (ie, preferences) for COVID-19 pandemic social distancing strategies against the hypothetical risk of acquiring COVID-19 and anticipated income loss. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study recruited individuals living in the Missouri area from May to June 2020 via randomly distributed unincentivized social media advertisements and local recruitment platforms for members of minority racial and ethnic groups. Participants answered 6 questions that asked them to choose between 2 hypothetical counties where business closures, social distancing policy duration, COVID-19 infection risk, and income loss varied. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reweighted population-level relative preferences (utilities) for social distancing policies, subgroups, and latent classes. Results: The survey had a 3% response rate (3045 of 90 320). Of the 2428 respondents who completed the survey, 1669 (75%) were 35 years and older, 1536 (69%) were women, and 1973 (89%) were White. After reweighting to match Missouri population demographic characteristics, the strongest preference was for the prohibition of large gatherings (mean preference, -1.43; 95% CI, -1.67 to -1.18), with relative indifference to the closure of social and lifestyle venues (mean preference, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.17). There were weak preferences to keep outdoor venues (mean preference, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61) and schools (mean preference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.30) open. Latent class analysis revealed 4 distinct preference phenotypes in the population: risk averse (48.9%), conflicted (22.5%), prosocial (14.9%), and back to normal (13.7%), with men twice as likely as women to belong to the back to normal group than the risk averse group (relative risk ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.12). Conclusions And relevance: In this survey study using a discrete choice experiment, public health policies that prohibited large gatherings, as well as those that closed social and lifestyle venues, appeared to be acceptable to the public. During policy implementation, these activities should be prioritized for first-phase closures. These findings suggest that policy messages that address preference heterogeneity (eg, focusing on specific preference subgroups or targeting men) could improve adherence to social distancing measures for COVID-19 and future pandemics.